Orange's heritage: Have your say

F3192- Heritage Study Review

1. Background and Introductory Notes

We are seeking to respond to the invitation to consult on F3192- Heritage Study Review.
We are property owners in Prince Street in the proposed new Bletchington Conservation Area. We have owned the property for 15 years.
The property is a detached 3 bedroom bungalow house constructed in 1970. It is significantly different from its nearest neighbours and identified buildings of heritage value in terms of construction materials (an orange/red brick, not the local buff brick), set back (set significantly further back from the street than neighbours), windows (large aluminium), site position (built entirely across the block, blocking access to the very large backyard for extensions without modification to the street frontage), fencing (low iron and brick fence) and block size (larger than surrounding blocks with single dwellings). It was not designed by an architect, has poor proportions (jarring to the eye and not balanced) and has no unique features, although it is clearly of its early 1970s construction period with similar houses dotted throughout Orange.
There is no evidence of the ‘patchwork’ piece by piece effect of the original and subsequent land releases identified as one of the features of the proposed HCA in the immediate surrounding area - while this house is generally surrounded by much older single dwellings in various states of maintenance and repair, they are also of different periods. As well, one adjoining neighbour is a converted older home that has for many years been non-residential, and one is a block of units built by a developer in the last ten years.

2. Inability to effectively consult with the information and documents provided

We support the protection of the look of Oranges older homes and the character of the inner streets of Orange - they are beautiful and certainly very worth preserving.
However, we are concerned that it is very difficult for owners of properties like ours to understand how the proposal may affect us - in terms of redevelopment of the site without the existing dwelling or incorporating the existing dwelling. The property has been held for some considerable time, to align with the redevelopment of the old hospital site and the expected renewed interest in and revitalisation of the surrounding area.
In the consultation documents, the question of ‘what does this mean for my property’ type questions are dealt with by suggesting that it is very hard to say and each proposal needs to be assessed on its merits. Any pointers given clearly apply to the californian bungalows and victorian type residences - not 1970s bungalows.
The infill guidelines similarly clearly provide guidance to property owners of certain types of properties with references to picket fences being the norm and detached rear garages. There is no guidance at all that we can find to understand what the proposal means for modern properties - of which there are many in the area - or earlier 1970s/80s properties.
The existing HCA in Orange also have more recent builds in them - so the issues have been dealt with before and Council will have made relevant determinations. Based on that experience, we counter that in fact it's not too difficult for Council to provide some guidance on at least the principles that would apply to the people affected by the proposal and to therefore conduct genuine consultation with those affected who are not also property developers or have extensive prior experience with planning instruments, and council decision making on planning issue sin HCAs.
Unfortunately in the absence of anything relevant or helpful for this group of homeowners from Council, the developers and real estate agents with their practical experience are the key source of information about what this might actually mean for us, and if accurate, this does not paint a picture we can support and certainly does not appear to be in the interests of revitalisation and regeneration of an area where there are many examples of extensively rundown historic properties, as well as much more modern housing in various states of maintenance and repair.
There are suggestions out there that in fact Councils approach to certain things are more settled than the generally ‘case by case' commentary in the draft report suggests. For example, if in fact it is a policy position of Council that all alterations to an existing property in a HCA, other than minor modifications consistent with the infill guidelines, requires an architect to be engaged, as has been suggested, then this should be stated and not hidden from the community.

How about scheduling the 'drop-in information session' for a time when real people can actually attend? Seriously, 9am to midday?? This expansion of heritage zonings affects real people with real jobs - more so than other demographs